C
It's true in the same way trickle-down economics is true. By which I mean by cherry-picking your samples and then conflating some numbers and using some murky math, it's true.
Say for example your average redcard-toting guest spends $1,000 more per annum at your store (it's something in that ballpark, can't remember the exact figure). Let's say my store hits its redcard goal of 6 per day, every single day, for an entire year, and every guest spends that $1,000 extra average during that year. We make more sales, this is true. About $2m and change if we had had 0 redcards otherwise for the year. Unfortunately this is not enough to bump my store out of the D-volume bracket next year, which means any meaningful change in payroll is out of our reach. Yes we can get flex payroll if we beat sales by 3%, but I'm talking significant long term change in payroll.
If your store is right on the cusp of the next bracket up, sure, you might be able to break that hump by really pushing redcards. The odds are stacked against you however. The vagaries of your local economic trends, as well as things outside any of our direct control like the data breach and other things tend to have a vastly stronger influence on store sales trends. So on a wide view of the situation, yes sales = payroll. However it makes a difference when it comes to a tectonic shift, not a small scale change, the math just doesn't work.
Hahaha. I just couldn't believe my GSTL was pushing this so hard to our new trainees. I was just like "yea, right". Selling lies...And if you believe that I have this great bridge to sell you.
The statistics are interesting that they throw around, but they simply show a correlation not a causation. That is my issue with using them openly (especially if we go around telling stock holders these things). Sure, a guest who holds a REDcard spends more than a guest who does not, but it begs a question... Do guests who spend more use REDcards or do REDcards make guests spend more?
it's obvious that the more RCs you get, the more hours you are likely to get.
The statistics are interesting that they throw around, but they simply show a correlation not a causation. That is my issue with using them openly (especially if we go around telling stock holders these things). Sure, a guest who holds a REDcard spends more than a guest who does not, but it begs a question... Do guests who spend more use REDcards or do REDcards make guests spend more?
I'd say 95% of people who use Red Cards would have shopped at Target anyway. I think it is the people who are already loyal to your store and think "eh, what the hell"... These are my totally made up statistics, but in my mind are totally true.